U.S Credit Rating Has Been Downgraded

[Wolseley]

What, what?

Quotation from McHale's Navy. Gotcha.

 

[Non sequitur]

Quotation from McHale's Navy. Gotcha.

I don't recall this quote.

 

[sdmsanjose]

The post below is the kind of post that is enjoyable to read. Why? Because it gives you information. I may not agree with all the statements but the poster is giving information pertinent to the issues. Thank you Amiga!

What is also interesting is that all those that take the opposite position of Amiga did not post any facts or references that dispute Amiga’s post

I know that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is fine. However, an opinion without facts or references is, well you know what they say about opinions. They are like________everyone has one.

Post by Amiga1200
I can't believe what I'm reading. The Democrats, with a few exceptions like Kucinich and Sanders, are moderates. Where is the radicalism in any of their proposals!? Even the furthest left-wing set of proposals would not get us to the level that right-moderate governments in Europe have successfully lived with.

Most importantly, stop lying about out-of-control entitlement spending. Those on the board saying we spend too much on entitlements are either heartless, insane, or view the entire world as consisting of the U.S. My rationale? Entitlement spending in the U.S. is 26th out of 34 nations in the OECD, calculated as a percentage of GDP.

Or to put it another way: Germany, the most competitive economy in the world on a per-capita basis (they export more raw goods than we do with 1/4 of the population we have), a nation with little debt and strong industrialization, spends 25% of GDP on entitlements and social programs, as much as our ENTIRE FEDERAL BUDGET. France spends 28%, Sweden 27%, Austria 26%, Belgium and Denmark 26%, and Finland 25%. Hardly the dregs of the first-world in that list. Our total social spending, across all levels of government, is 16%, despite having much higher poverty/child poverty rates, a much larger and more depressed class of working poor, longer working hours (over 300 more per year!), etc... than all of these nations. So, we spend far less on entitlements despite having more people in need and more income and wealth inequality.

The solution? LESS entitlements and more tax cuts that have exacerbated the unparalleled flow of assets from the bottom 90% into the hands of the top 10% and top 2% most specifically! You must be kidding, especially when we have a massive demand shortage with huge levels of unencumbered free cash sitting in the hands of major corps. The velocity of money is much higher in the hands of the poor and middle class, which is why unemployment benefits and welfare stimulate the economy much faster than tax cuts to those with no immediate need to spend. And, nearly all persons who pay significant taxes work... meaning that, simply by knowing they work and have an income, have SOMEWHAT less need to spend (as a group) than the unemployed or impoverished. We have the lowest-wage, lowest-benefit jobs extant in the rich half of the first-world, so I don't mean to exaggerate how necessary entitlement spending is to many working folks as well (bottom 40% of households average about $2200 in total assets!!!!).

I'm coming to believe that the co-opting of the Christian right by radical free-market propertarians was the coup of the century, because what I'm seeing about economics on this board cannot be, in any way, rooted in reality.

By the way, Ireland and Greece, the two biggest debt-bombs in the EU, have revenue rates far lower than the OECD average, just like us.




Oh, and to add, all of those European "socialist" (aka moderate social democracy) nations I listed have AAA or AA+ debt ratings. The ones with the big social spending on entitlements and health care, and big unions, etc...



A non-greedy and people-centered solution would recognize that revenues are at a 60-year low and entitlement spending is very low compared to other first-world countries with better quality-of-life! And adjust accordingly.

 

[QuestionAsker]

The US is much larger than any European country in terms of population; providing insurance for >300,000,000 people is roughly equivalent (if Wikipedia's stats are close to right; note that I actually bumped up the populations of some countries since some numbers are from 2008/2009) to providing insurance for the populations of Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Sweden, and Ireland all at once.

I think it's acceptable for states to have their own public options. However, I do not think it's acceptable for the federal government to do so, if only because decisions made about healthcare in Alaska or Maine may not be appropriate for Florida or Hawaii. Please also keep in mind that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution are given to the states or the people; states should not be forced to provide a public option by the federal government. That's the beauty of federalism in a nation as large as ours.

 

[tsr]

As of this thread were waiting for the Stock Market to open....does not look good as it is expected a big drop again. With a decline in the U.S. credit rating, its expected interest rates with go up on credit cards, making it very difficult to purchase anything. Our troubles are just beginning.

 

[RisingSpirit]

As of this thread were waiting for the Stock Market to open....does not look good as it is expected a big drop again. With a decline in the U.S. credit rating, its expected interest rates with go up on credit cards, making it very difficult to purchase anything. Our troubles are just beginning.

Doesn't this mean that many can buy cheap stocks at cheaper prices and then later when the Credit rating goes back to AAA and the richer gets richer and we have more rich folks not paying taxes. I recently heard that the Bush tax caused all this. The last I heard was that the Tea Party Republican caused all this.

 

[tsr]

Doesn't this mean that many can buy cheap stocks at cheaper prices and then later when the Credit rating goes back to AAA and the richer gets richer and we have more rich folks not paying taxes. I recently heard that the Bush tax caused all this. The last I heard was that the Tea Party Republican caused all this.

You are correct RisingSpirit....it did start with the Bush tax.....and then was fueled by Tea Party Republicans

 

[SharonL]

That's getting very old - you should get another horse to beat to death. There is enough blame to go around. None of them are doing good - look at our country - the Dems have been in power from 2007 or 2008 - yes Bush was president - but he did not have control - the majority in power was the Dems - now doesn't it look a little silly to blame people who did not have control.

What the Tea Party did was stop this insane spending that would have taken us so far down that we could never get up again - as it is now - it will take 9 to 16 years to get back up. Everyone should face the fact that we all had some blame - no one has clean hands in this mess - would be nice to see some threads on solutions instead of the same ole blame - the Tea Party and the Republicans did it - that is foolish talk when everyone in power had something to do with it.

Harry Reid tabled the one thing that the S&P said would have stopped the downgrade - the cut, cap and balance plan which he would not even bring to the table for a vote - now how can the Tea Party be blamed for that. The head of S&P said himself if that had been considered they would not have downgraded, but as it is they don't see any progress for anything.

 

[tsr]

That's getting very old - you should get another horse to beat to death.

Truth hurts don't it!!!!!

 

[RisingSpirit]

That's getting very old - you should get another horse to beat to death.

You mean "another elephant".

 

[MachZer0]

Harry Reid tabled the one thing that the S&P said would have stopped the downgrade - the cut, cap and balance plan which he would not even bring to the table for a vote - now how can the Tea Party be blamed for that. The head of S&P said himself if that had been considered they would not have downgraded, but as it is they don't see any progress for anything.

So as it turns out, it was the Democrats that held America hostage and turned around and blamed it on the Tea Party. Ya gotta love those Washington Democrats.

Oh, and let's not for get that to Democrats in Washington (and how many others we may never know), calling for a balanced budget is right wing extremism, even terrorism

 

[Billnew]

The most important thing is that the other party gets blamed here, that was the reason for all this idiotic political theater.

The political parties are out to win and not to represent our interests at all.

I agree.

One side scared everyone thinking that the world would fall apart if we didn't raise our debt ceiling and name calling people that wanted to see the cuts that the creditors requested to keep our credit rating unchanged.
The other side negotiated against themselves until there was almost no cuts in spending while adding 2trillion in debt.

Budget terrorists unite!

If there is no crisis forcing goverments hands, they will not stop spending.
If the side wanting cuts won't stand strong, they will not stop spending.
If the side wanting cuts do not ensure real dollar cuts, they won't stop spending.

The great "deal": increase debt by 2 trillion this year, 1.9 trillion in "cuts" over 10yrs, with no reduction in spending; meaning 9-10trillion dollars* in debt added on while they are "cutting". Then the all great study group that will spend more money looking for ways to cut spending that no one will pay attention too.

*actually alot more, if we spend a trillion every six months, debt increase would be 20 trillion dollars.

 

[Wolseley]

That's getting very old - you should get another horse to beat to death. There is enough blame to go around. None of them are doing good - look at our country

Exactly right, Sharon. I simply have to shake my head when I reat these partisan rants from both sides; when are people going to wake up and realize that this mess is not the fault of the Democrats OR the Republicans---it's the fault of the entrenched, corrupt, career Washington insider politicians who have been living inside the beltway too long???

Either get rid of the rigged two-party system, or impose strict term limitations for Congress: six to eight years, and you're out.

But of course, since the Congressmen are the ones who write the election laws, they're not about to enact legislation which would put an end to their own grip on power---which is why the system is rigged.

Where's that asteroid strike on Washington? We need change, and that's the only way we'll ever get it.

 

[RisingSpirit]

...- yes Bush was president - but he did not have control - the majority in power was the Dems - now doesn't it look a little silly to blame people who did not have control.

I really really really wanted the Iraqi war to stop. It was the wrong country to begin with and Bush hired men to Boss him around instead of Him being the commander, Bush allowed his generals and chiefs to take over with authority to do whatever they wished for quick shock and awe and waterboard dads to death without info. Yes Bush didn't do anything but make a law to give his war friends authority to fight a useless war that should have never been fought. All my tax money was drained and my friends killed. While Bush was writing blank checks, he overlooked Wall Street. With laughter, he pass the blame to Obama as the cause of our problems. Tea Party can't spell there marching signs right more less understand to concept of building the future. While picking on the president's birthplace, the real work on the future is discussed behind the secret walls of the white house.

Look at the Tea Partiers jumping in the "Where was the President born?" hole:

 

[PHenry42]

The great "deal": increase debt by 2 trillion this year, 1.9 trillion in "cuts" over 10yrs, with no reduction in spending; meaning 9-10trillion dollars* in debt added on while they are "cutting". Then the all great study group that will spend more money looking for ways to cut spending that no one will pay attention too.

Well, maybe if the Reps had actually agreed to some tax hikes, the Dems would have agreed to more cuts. Give more and get more, that's compromise. To give nothing in exchange for only getting a small part of what you want is not compromise, it's something-for-nothing.

Here's a radical idea: For each dollar by which taxes are raised, one dollar of spending cuts is made. Repeat until budget is in balance. Who's with me?

 

[RisingSpirit]

Oh, and let's not for get that to Democrats in Washington (and how many others we may never know), calling for a balanced budget is right wing extremism, even terrorism

Are Politicians using the word, "terrorism" for real? Thats a new one for me but not surprised. Terrorism seems to be the overused word all over the globe.

 

[stelow]

This is all planned; for the Constitution to be able to survive, there's only one way for that to happen, but that ain't going to happen, because we are either divided on, or totally stupefied to what's happening.

It's like George Carlin, use to say; they've got us by the balls.

 

[Wolseley]

Here's a radical idea: For each dollar by which taxes are raised, one dollar of spending cuts is made. Repeat until budget is in balance. Who's with me?

I have a much better idea: for every $1 billion dollars that the debt goes higher, we execute one Congressman until the rest of them get the debt squared away.

Since we are currently going into debt at the rate of $4 billion dollars every day, I'm willing to bet a policy like that would get them moving, what do you think?

 

[RisingSpirit]

...

Budget terrorists unite!

...

Old news on Egypt and Libya protests. Now Syria are the ones we're watching. Just read yesterday that the protest are now in Israel. More news today on young people protesting in other places. I guess protesting violently is the new fad.


It's seems to be growing. It won't be long before hte the beast of Internet rules the world.

HAL? HAl?


are you there, HAL?

 

[abysmul]

I have a much better idea: for every $1 billion dollars that the debt goes higher, we execute one Congressman until the rest of them get the debt squared away.

Since we are currently going into debt at the rate of $4 billion dollars every day, I'm willing to bet a policy like that would get them moving, what do you think?

Too bad nobody in Washington will write that legislation!